Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the General Plan Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public Lands Council asks county to require business safety, hazardous-material and disaster-response plans in general plan
Summary
The Emery County Public Lands Council unanimously voted to ask county commissioners to add a requirement in the general plan that businesses submit safety, hazardous-material and disaster-response and recovery plans — a recommendation aimed at solar-battery, mining and other projects adjacent to public lands.
The Emery County Public Lands Council unanimously approved a recommendation asking the county to include, in its updated general plan, a requirement that businesses provide safety, hazardous-material and disaster-response and recovery plans. The motion, made during the council’s regular meeting, was presented as a way to reduce public-safety and environmental risks related to large infrastructure projects adjoining public lands.
Council member (speaker 4) moved that the council "encourage the county to include in their general plan a requirement for businesses to present a safety slash hazard material and disaster response and recovery plan for each business in the county." The motion was seconded and, after discussion about enforcement, insurance, bonds and emergency-response training, passed by voice vote.
Members said the recommendation is meant to address multiple project types, including solar farms that include large battery storage units, mineral sites and other industrial activities. Speakers noted that several battery-laden truckloads pass through Emery County daily and that lithium and other battery fires present particular hazards to first responders.
County staff noted the general plan is being updated by contractor BioWest and that a new draft for public review should be released soon; the council asked that its recommendation be forwarded to the commissioners in time for inclusion before the public-comment release if possible.
The council’s motion does not specify enforcement mechanisms or exact permit requirements; staff indicated that conditional-use permits or planning-and-zoning conditions could implement safety-plan requirements and that existing insurance and bond rules cover reclamation but not necessarily emergency-response capability. The council’s action was a policy recommendation to the county commission, not an adoption of regulatory language.
Next steps: the council will review the next BioWest draft when available and forward the motion and suggested language to county commissioners for consideration during the formal public-comment process.
